I just want to quote this so you can see it yourself, Pro.

From the Lumen Gentium Appendix.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

Well, let's see, what in Vatican II had to do with Faith and Morals?


....

Look it up. I'm working on it, but as far as I know, the "Dogmatic Constitutions" did.

Parentsfortruth, I already read that passage and quoted it in my post.  Hello? It says that the Council binds only what it declares to be binding. The statement in question was not declared as binding. What don't you get???

Catholic Martyr, you don't have to quote those passages to me, I know the problems with the statement in Lumen Gentium.  Do you think that I'm ok with it?  Are you kidding me???!!!

You're missing the obvious point: that scandalous statement at Lumen Gentium 16 is not binding on the Church.

Read the second quote.  What, did you and Parentsfortruth only bother to read the first quote???

The second question, whether LG 16 can be interpreted in an orthodox way, remains to be discussed.  Let's stick with the first question.

According to the vatican, they're saying (and this is my understanding of it) that the SSPX has to accept vatican ii. If there's nothing dogmatic in it, as you claim, then why is the vatican insisting that the SSPX accept it?

First of all, Lumen Gentium contains several reiterations of previously defined dogmatic truths, e.g:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". (LG 8)

Surely you don't deny that all Catholics are bound to accept the above statement, do you?  Of course not. So, there are some things in Vatican II that are part of the deposit of Faith and which we must accept de fide, because they are indeed dogmatic and binding truths.

There are other things in Vatican II that are novel and in no way part of the deposit of Faith as defined dogmatically by previous Popes and Councils, for instance:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (LG 8)

Thus we find in Vatican II the pure doctrine of the Faith set alongside novelty, error, and, perhaps, heresy.

So, the Vatican says that the SSPX must accept "Vatican II". Well, surely you must accept, as does the SSPX, certain parts of Vatican II, i.e., those parts that are re-statements of previously defined Dogmatic Truth, right?  In other words, you cannot reject everything in Vatican II, or you will surely be guilty of heresy somewhere along the way.

What else in Vatican II must we accept as strictly binding on our Catholic conscience? LG provides the answer:

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. (LG, Appendix: 'NOTIFICATIONES' GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION, NOVEMBER 16, 1964)

Are you paying attention, Parentsfortruth? The scandalous statement at LG 16 about Muslims adoring along with Catholics "the one and merciful God" is not binding on our Catholic conscience because the Council did not openly declare it to be binding. Are you beginning to see??? Now, I understand that LG also states that we "ought to accept" everything else that is written in the docuмents of Vatican II "according to the mind of the Council". What in the world does that mean? That's a subject for another thread. Let's take one thing at a time.

Why does the Vatican tell the SSPX that they must "accept Vatican II"? Obviously, because Pope Benedict XVI and his cohorts want to save their baby.  This ought to come as no surprise to anyone.  Yet neither should it be a cause for alarm, because the Vatican cannot force the SSPX to accept that wooly, erroneous, and possibly heretical statement at LG 16. Why not? Because it was not openly declared as binding.

It will be interesting to see how hard the Vatican presses the SSPX on accepting the Authentic (fallible) Magisterium, which is responsible for the scandalous statement in question.

P.S. Vatican II language should have its own dictionary.  I like the part about how not only must we show religious submission to the mind and will of the Pontiff, but we must show it in a "special way."

What is this special way?  Can I get some clarification on that?    It must be "special" because it's not like the submission of people to real Popes.  It's a complete immersion into irrationality.

Gotta love this.

"Special." Basically it means just go to   ...  :sheep:....

It seems to me that the only explicitly binding teaching that LG sets forth is the doctrine concerning the hierarchical structure of the Church:

And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. (LG 18)

Again, the Appendix to LG states:

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.

The simple fact is that the Council did not declare that the faithful must give the assent of faith to the erroneous proposition that Muslims adore along with Catholics the one and merciful God. The Council only declares that I ought to accept and embrace that proposition (along with all the other non-binding propositions of Vatican II) "according to the mind of the Sacred Council".

What is the "mind of the Council"? God only knows, because it is not at all clear from such texts as we find in LG 15-16. While those texts do not explicitly deny traditional doctrine, they can easily be interpreted in ways that contradict traditional doctrine. Those texts are a scandal, yet I do not think that we can truly characterize them as open and manifest heresy. They stink of heresy, yet that is not the same as to be formally heretical. In any case, I admit that I set myself in opposition to the Council by refusing to accept and embrace such nonsense.

P.S. Vatican II language should have its own dictionary.

Vatican II and Benedict XV (Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, for example, if anyone is so inclined to read it and see how evil this heretic is) both.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
by Dr. Ludwig Ott (heretic, schismatic)

"...§ 9. Theological Censures

       By a theological censure is meant the judgment which characterises a proposition touching Catholic Faith or Moral Teaching as contrary to Faith or at least as doubtful...

       ...The usual censures are the following: A Heretical Proposition (propositio haeretica); ...a Captious Proposition (prop. captiosa), i.e., reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity...